I first challenge (1).
But before I do, I need to properly establish a definition of
“omnipotence”. Now, most people have it
in their heads that when a Christian says God is “omnipotent”, we mean that he
can literally do anything imaginable.
Most Christian theologians and philosophers, however, have realized that
such a broad definition needs to be brought under control. It is now largely accepted that God cannot do
what is logically impossible – for instance, he cannot create a square circle
or a married bachelor. We say this not
as a limitation of God, for most Christians will contend that the laws of logic
stemmed from God in the first place.
Even the Bible puts a few limitations on God; the gospel of James
contends that God cannot tempt nor be tempted.
And, of course, we must conclude that God cannot create something more
powerful than himself, since there is no such thing as something more powerful
than himself. When we say that God is
omnipotent, then, we mean that God can do everything which can be done, not that he can do every single nonsensical that
we can possibly imagine.
With this definition in mind, we return to an analysis
of (1). Consider the following
scenario: let’s say that Bob’s personal standard
for his life is getting a promotion to a particular position where he
works. Suppose that Sarah’s personal standard
for her life is getting a promotion to the exact same position at the exact
same company. Assuming that
circumstances are static and will not seriously fluctuate, if Bob’s personal standard
is met, then Sarah’s personal standard is at that same moment forsaken, and
vice-versa. The two standards are “x”
and “not-x”; you cannot logically have both.
Thus we see that God cannot uphold both of these standards, since he
cannot do what is logically impossible.
To uphold both standards would be a logical contradiction, something
which God cannot do. It follows that we
have good reason for saying that God, in fact, may not be able to make the
world good according to your personal standards on the matter. What if your standards contradict another man’s
standards? God would have to forsake one
or the other.
Now, I suppose that it is true that God could create a
new opening for a new promotion in that company, thereby appeasing Sarah in the
event that Bob got the promotion and she didn’t. Notice two things about this, though. First, Sarah would technically have to change
her personal standard in order for God to fulfill it. We assume that Sarah would be satisfied with
a different promotion simply because it would be highly irrational of her to be
discontent with a promotion which is just as good. But there is no guarantee, though, that she
would be content with this different promotion.
If after Bob got the promotion, Sarah refused to change her personal standard
even after God had opened up that new promotion for her, then God still could
not fulfill her personal standard without thereby forsaking Bob’s standard by
demoting him. If God is to give Sarah
and Bob the free will to have their own standards, then he cannot force them to
change their standards without thereby infringing upon their free will. And if they are hell-bent on making their standards
mutually exclusive from each other, then God can either appease one and forsake
the other, or force both of them to change their standards (and thereby
infringing upon their free will).
Second, it is unlikely that God could open up that
position for Sarah at all without forsaking someone else’s personal standards
or infringing upon free will. In order
to open up that promotion, James might have to be demoted; and it is almost
certain that demotion is not congruent with James’s personal standards for his
life. God might, perhaps, create some
circumstances whereby the company requires a new position for Sarah to fill,
but who else might those circumstances affect?
The God who fulfills everyone’s personal standards is looking a lot less
like a divine Father and more like a divine Micromanager. The possible reasons why God would not want
to micromanage his creation stack from here to the moon and beyond. Thus the affirmation of (1) crumbles, for
there are demonstrable instances wherein God, though being omnipotent, is
incapable of fulfilling a personal standard of good here without forsaking a
personal standard of good there.
No comments:
Post a Comment